| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 .. 118 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 5 post(s) |
|
CCP Zymurgist
Gallente
C C P
   |
Posted - 2011.03.25 16:36:00 -
[1]
CCP Greyscale is excited about the changes coming to anomalies. Read all about it here in his latest dev blog.
Zymurgist
Community Representative
CCP NA, EVE Online
Contact Us |
|
Kno Bodeesbitch
|
Posted - 2011.03.25 16:42:00 -
[2]
first?!?!?
|
Kerosene
Caldari
V I R I I
Merciless.
|
Posted - 2011.03.25 16:59:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Kerosene on 25/03/2011 16:59:31
Ghetto Quote from Blog:
* Some alliances will immediately start wanting to look for better space
* In the longer run, there'll be more conflicts going on, with more localized goals
* Newer alliances will have an easier time getting a foothold in nullsec
* Coalitions will be marginally less stable
* Alliances will have to choose more carefully what space they develop, where their staging systems are, and so on (low truesec systems generally tend to be in strategically inconvenient places)
On all 5 of them points I'd like to say 'my arse'.
1. Alliances don't base their location on the number of sanctums available.
2. Why? Do you think people fight over sanctums?
3. People won't move because of the change (see points 1 and 2 above) so why would alliances get a better foothold?
4. Coalitions will be less stable why?
5. Not while jump bridges exist. You think you over estimate the power of anomolies. They are a nice-to-have, not a reason for living somewhere.
edit: typo
__
Eve. Eve eve eve eve. EVE. Eve. Eve eve eve eve eve eve EVE eve eve. - Kerosene
The way to stop isk farmers is to STOP BUYING ISK.
|
randomname4me
|
Posted - 2011.03.25 17:08:00 -
[4]
Edited by: randomname4me on 25/03/2011 17:15:00
 Quote:
Expected consequences
Some alliances will immediately start wanting to look for better space
In the longer run, there'll be more conflicts going on, with more localized goals
Newer alliances will have an easier time getting a foothold in nullsec
Coalitions will be marginally less stable
Alliances will have to choose more carefully what space they develop, where their staging systems are, and so on (low truesec systems generally tend to be in strategically inconvenient places)
Congrats to CCP for completely misunderstanding how nullsec works. let me correct your expected consequences:
Quote:
Big power blocks will immediately start securing the better space for themselves
In the longer run, there'll be no changes in conflicts going on since alliance goals have not changed
Newer alliances will have the same difficulty in renting space from the big power blocks in nullsec and will have a harder time fighting big power blocks since the space they can rent\hold will be too crappy to allow them to develop.
Coalitions will be marginally more stable
Alliances will have to an easy time choosing what space they develop, where their staging systems are, and so on (low truesec systems generally tend to be in strategically inconvenient places but its no big deal when you have 5k members to call on and another 30k meat shields to clog up the systems anyway)
Case in point:
Quote:
In the longer run, there'll be more conflicts going on, with more localized goals
Do you really think test and friends took Fountain for the bounties? Also do you think the NC and the DRF have smashed 30 some titans over the quality of space available in Geminate?
Petition|Successful|Reimbursement|Lag
Pick 3 |
Sydis
|
Posted - 2011.03.25 17:09:00 -
[5]
In theory this is great, but moons are the biggest source of income for an alliance and I do not see how this change will make any difference while that remains the biggest factor on the value of space.
|
El'Niaga
Minmatar
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2011.03.25 17:27:00 -
[6]
I don't believe this will do what you hope.
It's perhaps not as brutal as I thought it would be but still glad we moved systems so we are in the highest bracket before this after that one blog that alluded to changes, prepare for the worst and then accept when it doesn't materialize.
|
bp920091
|
Posted - 2011.03.25 17:44:00 -
[7]
This is yet another example of how CCP does not understand nullsec. Alliances will not change their goals, as their goals are not affected by the security class of their target system, that is more often an unintended side effect.
All this change does is make the few deep 0.0 systems more valuable (which would be a good thing if it was not already settled), while turning the VAST majority of 0.0 space into desolate wasteland once again.
If CCP wanted small alliances to succeed, killing the way that they can actually compete with others is not the way to do so. They are killing their way to fight large alliances as small to mid sized alliances use Anomalies to earn cash, rather than moons, as large alliances just take them for themselves.
A way that a positive change could be made, and still implementing the changes that they would like to see is improving the anomalies by security status, but not nerfing the lowsecurity areas (0.0 - -0.4). They could do this by increasing the number of faction drops even more in high security anomalies. This would still make deep 0.0 still very valuable, without killing the ability for small alliances to actually fight back against huge power-blocks.
Also, CCP could gradually improve 0.0 space (not by large amounts, but gradually), as huge areas of it would be turned into wasteland once again with this "fix".
I certainly hope CCP realized that all this change will do is increase the strength of power-blocks (something they say that they do not want to do), while reducing the ability for small alliances to actually do things (again, something they say they do not want to do).
|
Antihrist Pripravnik
4S Corporation
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2011.03.25 17:47:00 -
[8]
Want more wars in 0.0 space? Than boost the income of an individual player so he can spend less time grinding and more time fighting. You obviously don't have a clue what's the mentality of a real nullsec player.
Oh... and yeah... Wars are not started over Sanctums and ratting systems. That's just silly.
|
eatdatwatermelon
|
Posted - 2011.03.25 17:52:00 -
[9]
I live in a -0.24 system. The only way of reliably making isk in 0.0 that i actually have is to log on occasionally and do sanctums, as and when i have time to do so. Correct me if i'm wrong, but these changes suggest that -0.24 will no longer recieve any sanctums or havens? Might i ask what the **** that is about?
|
Malcanis
Caldari
Alcohlics Anonymous
Scum Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.03.25 17:52:00 -
[10]
Brace for incoming tears, as people explain how nerfing something the game didn't even have 15 months ago will be the END OF EVERYTHING.
Honestly though, this change does make sense; it's actually something close to the system that was originally expected.
It's going to shake up renter-space like crazy, though.
Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players. |
|
|
Alice Katsuko
Terra Incognita
Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2011.03.25 17:53:00 -
[11]
No alliance or corporation goes to war over bounties or drone poo. The DRF is not attacking Geminate because their players want access to Sanctums instead of Drone Hordes; new alliances almost never look for nullsec space in order to farm Havens; Goonswarm/TEST did not spend months fighting IT/BLAST/etc over Fountain and Delve so that their members would have access to better anomalies; Atlas/AAA/etc are not in conflict with PL over low truesec systems in Delve.
The real conflict in nullsec is over alliance-scale resources, namely high-end moons. Of course, CCP has already spectacularly failed at 'balancing' nullsec and creating more conflict a while back: instead of balancing moon goo and reducing alliance income from it, they not merely created the Technetium bottleneck in T2 production but placed the majority of Technetium moons squarely in NC space. So I suppose this latest failure of an attempt at 'creating more conflict,' which only shows how little understanding of nullsec CCP really has, is hardly unexpected.
While we're on the topic of anomalies, is there any chance that someone at CCP will actually fix warp-ins for drone anomalies so that we don't warp right into the middle of a giant structure? How about that fix for Pirate Entrapment Arrays which was promised when Dominion first came out?
|
Malcanis
Caldari
Alcohlics Anonymous
Scum Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.03.25 17:55:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Antihrist Pripravnik
Want more wars in 0.0 space? Than boost the income of an individual player so he can spend less time grinding and more time fighting. You obviously don't have a clue what's the mentality of a real nullsec player.
Oh... and yeah... Wars are not started over Sanctums and ratting systems. That's just silly.
You alliance has sufficient moon income to buy every member all the PvP ships they need.
Why doesn't it?
Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players. |
Darth Vapour
|
Posted - 2011.03.25 18:06:00 -
[13]
Quote:
Newer alliances will have an easier time getting a foothold in nullsec
This requires some explanation how exactly this is the case. It seems to be quite the opposite if good space (held by powerful entities) becomes even better and bad space (where these new upstarts would enter the 0.0 arena) becomes entirely worthless.
|
Renan Ruivo
Caldari
Hipernova
Tribal Conclave
|
Posted - 2011.03.25 18:06:00 -
[14]
Ok, so you gave the candy and now you're taking it away.
At any rate, i won't touch that right now. Sure i will be completely ****ed on my income source, and will now have to resort to having an alt in high-sec running missions, that give more profit than belt-ratting in one system with over 20 alliance mates at any given time.
But whats the purpose now of upgrading 0.0 to -0.2 systems? More Hidden Hubs? [sarcasm]Hooray..[/sarcasm].
____________
I like woman because breasts |
pot ato
|
Posted - 2011.03.25 18:11:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Renan Ruivo
But whats the purpose now of upgrading 0.0 to -0.2 systems? More Hidden Hubs? [sarcasm]Hooray..[/sarcasm].
I've been wondering this myself. Seems the only reason to install either ihub or TCU in this lower band is if you need strategic upgrades or want some more mining sites, and you can bet CCP will nerf the mining sites in the promised 'improvements to nullsec industrial landscape', which will leave only strategic upgrades.
|
DTson Gauur
Caldari
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises
R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2011.03.25 18:12:00 -
[16]
In a non-shocker CCP again shows how they don't know a squat about nullsec living. I hope the new CSM makes this change die in a fire.
|
Guilliman R
Gallente
Northstar Cabal
R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2011.03.25 18:17:00 -
[17]
CCP, we don't want to rat belts or rat anything less then havens and sanctums because it's **** income. You seem hellbent on nerfing 0.0 sec yet leaving high sec missioning alone.
We do not want to spend hours farming frigates and cruisers in hubs and below to pay our pvp ships. You're only hurting those that need it, not those that abuse it by botting.
I'm not sure if I'm willing to put in the time to rat in hubs alone to pay my accounts, so I might drop one. I really cba farming frigates.
There's also too many people out there, so you're basically condemning majority of the anomaly ratters to compete with their buddies in far fewer available havens and sanctums. There's generally already a shortage <.<
------
|
Antihrist Pripravnik
4S Corporation
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2011.03.25 18:21:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Antihrist Pripravnik
Want more wars in 0.0 space? Than boost the income of an individual player so he can spend less time grinding and more time fighting. You obviously don't have a clue what's the mentality of a real nullsec player.
Oh... and yeah... Wars are not started over Sanctums and ratting systems. That's just silly.
You alliance has sufficient moon income to buy every member all the PvP ships they need.
Why doesn't it?
Say it aloud, don't create links to web locations that encourage RMT.
Now, to answer you question - moon income is split on several tasks: building supercapitals/titans, sov bills, station building, POS and JB fuel and reimbursement programs for some of the fleet ships. Individual players (simple members) do not have any income from it. My point is, if you want more small scale PvP, individual members of the alliances need to have enough income to support their PvP. Nerfing 70%+ of nullsec will not accomplish that.
With a nerf to anomalies blobs just became safer for grunts. Congratulations!
|
Nirnaeth Ornoediad
Caldari
Cryo Innovations
Fatal Ascension
|
Posted - 2011.03.25 18:22:00 -
[19]
Moons are the biggest source of income for alliances, but Sanctums are the largest source of income for the average 0.0 pilot. This change will affect alliances who move based on membership desire more than it will affect the heavily autocratic alliances. Alliances that have things like ship reimbursement will also be affected less, as they're already effectively transferring wealth from moons to individual pilots.
One effect it could have is allow roams, etc. to focus on smaller target areas, since it is more likely that alliances will develop fewer systems. More concentrated fish = more concentrated sharks = more small-scale PVP goodness.
---------------------------------------------
U.S. Diplomat
Cryo Innovations
|
Chris Bartlett
Caldari
C.R.M Productions
BricK sQuAD.
|
Posted - 2011.03.25 18:26:00 -
[20]
tl;dr If its worth fighting for, its worth defending. No smaller entities will stand a chance at making isk in null-sec like they used to, making the space even more small-entity unfriendly.
CCP, you really haven't thought this through at all. In these past few months you'd become so much better at doing the right thing for the community as a whole, that i'd been cautiously optimistic regarding the changes to anomolies. Now the blog is up, we get this rubbish?
I'm quite wound up at the moment so this probably won't be as eloquent/well thought out as i'd like, but hey, the blog/proposed changes weren't very well thought out either. Ugh where to ****ing start.
What you're basically missing is the fact that if the much lower trusec systems do indeed become "worth fighting over", the big alliances will have them in seconds. As it is currently, any 0.0 system can be useful with some TLC. Install your upgrades, pay your sov fee etc, and bobs your uncle, you can rat and make isk to lose in alliance/coalition fleet ops.
You implement these changes, and all of a sudden regions like Geminate will become absoloutely useless. Why in gods name would an alliance bother with such a region, if there was no isk to be made? Noone will be fighting for the lower true-sec, because it'll already be claimed by the bigger powerblocs, who will be able to repel any and all attacks you may make against said systems with their standing super-cap fleets.
EVE, as a game, is about being a man, having balls, and having some fun. To get a chance at making isk, which, unless you're fan of noobship fleets, you need to have said fun, you'd need to either become a pet of, or join, the big alliances. You can't rat in blue space, it causes diplomatic drama unless you're specifically allowed to do so. You can't attack/try and take their space due to ****ty sov mechanics and the fact that they'll have bigger fleets.
How precisely do you propose that people will take this lower true-sec space? They won't be able to. If its worth fighting for, its worth defending. If its worth defending, you'll get blobbed to hell and back. The big/rich get bigger/richer, the smaller dogs get smaller.
No good will come of these proposed changes.
|
|
|
Guilliman R
Gallente
Northstar Cabal
R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2011.03.25 18:30:00 -
[21]
Indeed.
What you will end up seeing, is large coalitions cynojamming and bridging the good systems, and put them full of caps/suppers. Have fun roaming and fighting for it.
------
|
Chris Bartlett
Caldari
C.R.M Productions
BricK sQuAD.
|
Posted - 2011.03.25 18:36:00 -
[22]
Not to mention theres a massive amount of whining about AFK cloakers as of late. If only a few systems are worth ratting in, you can ****ing guarantee there'll be reds in cloaky rapiers or what have you sat there waiting for the opportunity to gank, risk free.
|
Phaershalee
|
Posted - 2011.03.25 18:43:00 -
[23]
LOL! CCP you have no clue about nullsec.
|
justin666
|
Posted - 2011.03.25 18:44:00 -
[24]
absolutely stupid change.....
we dont run havens or sanctums for "fun" we do it so we can make some bl++dy isk to fight in the 0.0 wars you want us to do stop nerfing the income further and further
|
Renan Ruivo
Caldari
Hipernova
Tribal Conclave
|
Posted - 2011.03.25 18:44:00 -
[25]
This proposed change better be announced for a April 1st patch, if you catch my drift.
____________
I like woman because breasts |
Rikki Sals
Caldari
|
Posted - 2011.03.25 18:50:00 -
[26]
If you really want to change player behavior in nullsec at the coalition/alliance level, you will have to make changes to moons.
|
Jita Gilligan
|
Posted - 2011.03.25 18:52:00 -
[27]
Amazing how nerfs always are at the front of the line and the "good stuff" are vague inconsequential future promises.
This isn't just a poor idea. It's a P I S S Poor idea. It will only make the rich richer.
This one shoul be scrapped. Aren't you idiots supposed to be working on Space Barbie, or something?
|
Kalain ap'Sulen
Dirt Nap Squad
Dirt Nap Squad.
|
Posted - 2011.03.25 18:55:00 -
[28]
Stating right now that this change sucks donkey ****s.
Quando ami flunkus morti. |
justin666
|
Posted - 2011.03.25 18:57:00 -
[29]
i wonder if ccp muppet releases that so far 90 percent of the player base in this thread does not like this change at all
we dont want to rat more and more ffs
|
Furb Killer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.03.25 19:03:00 -
[30]
Never go full ******. Serious this is even by :CCP: standards ridiculous.
Quote:
Firstly, we've evened out the upgrades so each one has four sites in it now, rather than five in the first and four in the rest. We're also retaining a mix of the sites that we're aware are regarded as "filler" by high-end players, for several reasons: to act as genuine filler so the earlier upgrades in some systems aren't empty; to give newer players resources they can use without much competition; and to give people running anomalies a little more safety from marauding enemies.
1. That is no reason they stay when you get more upgrades, why not just always 8 sites that increase in usefulness with higher level upgrades for example.
2. That is no reason to put 80% useless.
3. Yes because it is really safety that they first go looking in hubs and ports for our tengus. If they are that ******ed they arent a danger, everyone knows only havens and sanctums are actually used by targets of roaming gangs.
Quote:
In terms of the high-end sites that high-end players are after - Havens and Sanctums for normal factions, and Hordes for drones - the break-even compared to the current system's maximum of four is around the 3rd and 4th band (-0.5 to -0.8 space), which are -1 and +1 respectively. Below this, things get worse (0.0 to -0.2 systems won't get any high-end sites after the change), but the -0.9 to -1.0 band can potentially gain an extra six top sites with full upgrades. 26 of the 34 regions have at least one system in this security band, with half having 5 or more.
Anyone who can tell me how much systems fall into each band?
On first look this would mean 25% of all space is absolutely useless after this change (0.0 to -0.25), but i think more than 25% of 0.0 falls into this category. Creating an empty wasteland, good job CCP.
Quote:
Some alliances will immediately start wanting to look for better space
Yep, I wouldnt be surprised if we do that since all our space is suddenly useless.
Quote:
In the longer run, there'll be more conflicts going on, with more localized goals
If by more conflicts you mean some short blobs to evict all smaller alliances since we need now more lebensraum, yes.
Quote:
Newer alliances will have an easier time getting a foothold in nullsec
You actually think they will be allowed to take the useless space? It just becomes buffer zone for us, even if they take it, useless space is kinda useless.
Quote:
Coalitions will be marginally less stable
LAWL, you are truly idiotic. Serious go speak with Hardin (current CVA executioner), since he explained it best. But it comes down to simple fact: the more things you add to give us 'conflict', the more we band together to protect ourselves against it. In the hypothetical situation we would want other space (i am just a grunt, so dont take anythin for granted i say), we can do two things, ask our allies for better space (either from them or blob some poor alliance), or we can attack our allies, which CCP assumes we will do. Even if we completely ignore the BFF part and that we like hugging each other, what would be a better choice: Outblob some poor people with 50k group to get some space, or reset our BFFs to fight a 49k group then to take their space. Yeah was thinking that already, we stay BFF.
Quote:
Alliances will have to choose more carefully what space they develop, where their staging systems are, and so on (low truesec systems generally tend to be in strategically inconvenient places)
Hello CCP, welcome to jump drives/bridges, you know those things you added long time ago to your game.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 .. 118 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |